Thursday, November 17, 2016

DEFINITION OF HATE SPEECH AS PER THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AGAINST RACISM AND INTOLERANCE (ECRI)

In June of 2016, a young Muslim walked into a gay bar in
Orlando Florida, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and killed 49 people and injured 53
others[2].
Prior to the attack, he called the Orlando Police Department and proclaimed his
allegiance to the Islamic State. But to
report these facts is “hate speech” as per the European Union. How can this be?

DEFINITION

The EU starts out by reaffirming the right to free speech
and freedom of expression from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
as follows:

“Article
19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[3]

But then comes the “however”:

On page 124 of the ECRI General Policy Recommendation NO. 15
on combatting Hate Speech:[4]

Hate speech is of a more “serious character” when it “……can
be reasonably expected to incite acts of violence, intimidation, hostility or
discrimination.”

This means if the public is told the Orland attacker was
Muslim, it might generate hostility toward Muslims, the prevention of which is
more important to the EU than the piled-up bodies.Also, the desire to remove killers from
society is considered “discrimination”, or “fear of the other” and thus illegal.

The Muslim groups
always howl about the potential of “backlash” after a Jihad attack, and demand
police protection for the very Mosques that send the killers into the
community.[5]

So, where does this Orwellian suicidal logic come from?Answer: the Shari’a!

“Yusuf Ali: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and
turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression
are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they
(first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward
of those who suppress faith.”[6]

Resistance to
Islamization by the host society is the “tumult”. “Oppression” is defined by
Muslims as not living in a society where the Shari’a is dominant. Suppressing resistance
to Islamization is more important to Muslims than stopping the killing, (and of
course the Muslims are the ones doing the killing!)

This EU definition of “hate speech” is incompatible with the
American concept of “Free Speech” as well as common sense.The Global Islamic Movement is using the
concept it to paralyze the response to the Jihad it is waging against the West.
The EU pamphlet goes on to say:

“Recalling, however,
that freedom of expression and opinion is not an unqualified right and that it
must not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the rights of others:”[7]

The document goes on to expand “the rights of others” to
include protection from “racism, racial discrimination, gender-based
discrimination, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, anti-Semitism,
islamophobia, anti-Gypsysim, and intolerance, as well as of crimes of genocide,
crimes against humanity or war crimes and the public denial, trivialization,
justification or condonation of such crimes.”[8]

The authors never make a good case as to WHY such
restrictions are necessary. It is presented as an uncontestable fact. The
premise seems to be that people in the OSCE Area are so fragile emotionally
that they would have complete nervous breakdowns if someone were to speak to
them unkindly. But no one in the EU
bureaucracy seems concerned if EU citizens are murdered in Jihad attacks.

FURTHER USE BY GLOBAL ISLAMIC MOVEMENT

“Islamophobia” is the
main issue that the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working
to criminalize in the West since 2005. The ECRI now defines Islamophobia as
such:

Note carefully the definition doesn’t reference an “irrational
fear”, the normal definition of a “phobia”:It criminalizes fear of Muslims outright in and of itself. The
definition actually criminalizes a human emotion, in this case the the instinct
for self-preservation.

The OSCE’s problem is that fear of Islam is rational!Attacks of Islamic Jihad take place on a
daily basis and kill thousands.Yet the
OSCE strives to make it a punishable crime, which is absurd!

Concerning
non-believers, the Qur’an says:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your
power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the
enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know.”[10]

Jihad is meant to “strike terror into the hearts of
unbelievers”. Not only are we unbelievers to be terrorized, we are to be
punished by the OSCE for being so. What
is a poor non-believer to do?Evidently,
just keep smiling while the Jihadists take off our heads!

Therefore, using this warped logic, the
EU demanded that the British Press stop naming the Jihad attackers as Muslims
with a straight face, even though it’s true![11]The EU’s concern is that the naming of
Islam in the articles will increase “Xenophobia” and cause a “backlash” worse
than the attacks themselves.But there
have been over 1200 Muslim Jihad attacks in 2016 [12]
which have killed over 11,000 people with very few “backlashes”. Howling
“backlash” appears to be a calculated diversion to transform the aggressors
into victims.

Let us see how the Muslim groups would use this. At a Conference
in Vienna May 22, 2015 entitled OSCE
Security Days a correspondent from a Moroccan TV Show named Leila Ghandi was
asked if truth could be hate speech. Her response:

“I believe that the truth can be, not always, truth can
constitute hate speech, because sometimes truth is difficult, horrible in
itself. …………….. Sometimes when you report on facts and these facts point (to) a
community, then it can be the source of hateful speech. So, your question was
does that mean that hiding the truth would be a mean (way) to tackle the hate
speech. I would answer, sometimes it is. And sometimes we do. By not saying the
entire truth.”[13]

From the hadith: Muslim’s version recording that Umm Kulthum
added,

“I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say,
except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with
his wife or she with him (A: in smoothing over differences).”[14]

If Jihad is defined as “war against unbelievers”[15]
then suppressing the truth about Jihad would further their cause against the
West and be permitted under Islamic Law.

But why should the West go along with this suicidal
meme?The purpose of a free press is to
bring the needed truth to the public!To
suppress it is dangerous! In this case, the reality of the existential threat
of Islamic Jihad must not be hidden from the public if our civilization is to
formulate steps to protect itself and survive.Society might well investigate why these vital facts ARE being
suppressed.

What is the
relationship between the Muslim Groups in the West and the so-called “free
press”?Is there intimidation?
Infiltration? Black mail?Financial
payoffs?The public needs answers, and
quickly.